- #1

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

My first reaction was that the thermometer will be able to measure heating due to the Unruh effect whilst his lab is accelerating.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter ergospherical
- Start date

In summary, the equivalence principle might or might not extend to all theories of quantum gravity, it is difficult to distinguish the Unruh effect from Hawking radiation, and a possible physical origin for the heating effect in the case of hovering (by means of rockets, say) outside a star could be ascribed if we assume the quantum field is in the vacuum state according to inertial observers.

- #1

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

My first reaction was that the thermometer will be able to measure heating due to the Unruh effect whilst his lab is accelerating.

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Dale

Mentor

- 35,706

- 14,084

- #3

- 27,677

- 19,190

Does the equivalence principle extend to all theories of quantum gravity?

- #4

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

But something like a star or a planet doesn’t emit Hawking radiation, right?Dale said:

- #5

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 47,226

- 23,566

The Unruh effect is due to proper acceleration, and would be there, in principle, whether the lab was accelerating in free space or was sitting at rest in the gravitational field of a large mass. So it could not be used to distinguish those two cases.ergospherical said:My first reaction was that the thermometer will be able to measure heating due to the Unruh effect whilst his lab is accelerating.

OTOH, if by "gravitational attraction" the question means

- #6

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

- #7

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 47,226

- 23,566

I should actually rephrase my previous statement. The Unruh effect is derived assuming flat spacetime and the quantum field being in the vacuum state according to inertial observers. (See below for why the qualifier "according to inertial observers" is necessary.) If a gravitating mass is present, spacetime is neither flat nor in the vacuum state according to inertial observers, so it's not clear whether the Unruh effect would even be predicted in this case. If we assume it would be predicted in the "hovering in the vacuum region above a gravitating mass" case based on something like the equivalence principle, then its physical origin would be what I describe below.ergospherical said:Can we ascribe a physical origin to the heating effect in the case of hovering (by means of rockets, say) outside a star?

The qualifier I gave above about the vacuum state is necessary because the reason the Unruh effect is predicted at all is that which state of the quantum field is the "vacuum" is different for inertial observers and accelerated observers. More precisely, the concept of "vacuum state" for the quantum field requires a concept of "time translations" for its definition, and inertial observers and accelerated observers have different concepts of "time translations" (roughly speaking, because the inertial Killing vector field and the boost Killing vector field in Minkowski spacetime are different). The derivation of the Unruh effect amounts to showing that the state of the quantum field that is a vacuum state in flat spacetime for inertial observers is

The reference from which I first learned all this is Wald's monograph,

- #8

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

- #9

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 47,226

- 23,566

It's on Amazon:ergospherical said:I’ll look for the book later this week

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226870278/?tag=pfamazon01-20

When I said I have never found it online, I meant I have never found a digital version of it, or, for example, a preprint on arxiv.org or some other similar freely available online source that covers the same material.

- #10

ergospherical

- 1,045

- 1,335

- #11

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 47,226

- 23,566

If you can get through the book in a weekend you are definitely quicker at it than I am.ergospherical said:

- #12

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 9,210

- 2,432

- #13

- 14,278

- 6,755

Does it extend toPeroK said:Does the equivalence principle extend to all theories of quantum gravity?

- #14

- 24,488

- 15,026

As demonstrated by this discussion the problem with the equivalence principle or rather the equivalence principles is that it is usually discussed in the heuristic introductions to GR and then not further qualified given the fully exposed theory (a fate it shares with the discussions of the Michelson Morley experiment, which is usually also only discussed as a "crucial experiment" for the heuristical motivation of SR).

A clear way to state the principle is that the GR spacetime model is a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold with the fundamental form of the signature (1,3) or, equivalently (3,1). Physically that means that the notion of inertial frames is local an that at any point in spacetime there's always a local inertial frame of reference. That's of course not a good way to heuristically motivate GR but it should be the final clarifying statement about the content of the (then even strong!) equivalence principle.

For particle physicists another convincing semi-heuristic argument is that relativistic models of the gravitational interaction can be built by "gauging" Poincare invariance, which becomes then a local symmetry and thus you have a gauge theory with the general diffeomorphism invariance as the gauge group, which usually is called "general covariance". Together with the fact that there are particles with spin that leads to the statement that GR spacetime is described as a Einstein-Cartan manifold with torsion. In the usual "macroscopic" phenomenology, where gravitation plays a practical role, all you have is classical matter ("continuum mechanics") and the em. field as sources, and there the theory specializes to usual GR. If there is torsion, it's inside "polarized matter" and thus pretty difficult to observe.

Wilbert Zweistein's Objection to Equivalence Principle is a thought experiment proposed by physicist Wilbert Zweistein to challenge the validity of the Equivalence Principle in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The Equivalence Principle states that the effects of gravity and acceleration are equivalent. This means that an observer in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference would experience the same effects as an observer in a gravitational field.

Wilbert Zweistein's objection raises doubts about the validity of the Equivalence Principle and its role in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It challenges our understanding of gravity and the nature of space-time.

In the thought experiment, Zweistein imagines a box filled with gas that is accelerating upward in a gravitational field. He then introduces a small hole in the box and observes the behavior of the gas particles. According to the Equivalence Principle, the gas particles should behave as if they are in a uniform gravitational field, but Zweistein argues that this is not the case.

If Zweistein's objection is valid, it would mean that the Equivalence Principle is not a fundamental law of nature and would require a re-evaluation of our understanding of gravity and space-time. It could also potentially lead to a new theory of gravity that can better explain the observed phenomena.

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 542

- Replies
- 44

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 36

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 32

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 808

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 38

- Views
- 4K

Share: